From owner-cvs-all  Tue Feb 13  8: 4:30 2001
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3961237B65D; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from wollman@localhost)
	by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA30728;
	Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:01:48 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from wollman)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:01:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <200102131601.LAA30728@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.c ip_fw.h src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 ipfw.c 
In-Reply-To: <51205.982073676@critter>
References: <200102131412.f1DECdZ12064@freefall.freebsd.org>
	<51205.982073676@critter>
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

<<On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:14:36 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> said:

> It would be more elegant to have multiple lists of ipfw rules:

That is an excellent idea (and one that has been suggested before to
no effect).  Doing so would also improve the speed of access-list
evaluation, and would make ipfw more comfortable for those who are
used to (e.g.) Cisco per-interface access-lists.

-GAWollman



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message